Oliver Twist (2005)

Wow! What a bizarre film! Unfortunately the few funny moments there were were quite overshadowed by it's completely weird and random vibe throughout.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

I think this adaptation is not good. I can take my eyes of it, yes you read it right I CAN. This is what happen when a movie is stuffed with too much tragedy in the story line but dealt with less emotion. The feel does not vibe out of the characters that their performance is basically delivered but not effective and believable. The actors did not have the natural character they need to have in order to play that part. Dodgers was obviously trying hard to be artful that I try to convince myself he is the Artful Dodger, in other words he was not convincing. Oliver possessed the innocent look but not enough begging in his face. When you look at his expression, you cannot 'experience' the tragic. I guess that is what's lacking in this version of Oliver. We were suppose to feel for him even when he is not talking, actually, ESPECIALLY when he is not talking. Bill Sikes is... yikes. He looks fragile in this version that I asked myself is this really an adaptation of Oliver Twist or overly twisted story that the characters start swapping their personality?

There's a lot of hate going around saying it's not as good as the book, but really, movies never are! Having never read the book, I have no idea how the story was supposed to go, but I had seen Oliver and Company. I was very confused by this movie. From the start, it was very difficult to tell Olivier apart from the other boys when he was in the orphanage. Well, until he recited the famous line of asking for seconds, which it was Gruel, it probably only cost them $2 to feed the entire orphanage! So many questions came up over the course on the movie. Why he didn't just stay with that nice old woman he met on his way to London. It was obvious she wouldn't have minded him staying. Of course if he had not gone to London, it would have been a very dull movie. For that matter, why were those thieves so hell-bent on keeping Oliver? I much preferred the motivation in Oliver and Company, where they were innocently trying to rescue him. Moreover, why use Oliver to break into that rich man's house? Another more experienced boy would have been much better suited for the job. It's a very confusing movie.

The movie "Oliver Twist" by Roman Polski, based on the book "Oliver Twist" by Mark Twain is about the little orphan Oliver Twist. He used to grow up in an orphanage but after he obeyed the rules, he gets sold to a businessman. After he escapes from there he goes to London where he meets Fagin and his gang and they take care of him. But there are thief's and as Oliver realizes that, he tries got get away of them and an exciting hunting begins... The general setting of the movie is quite good, i guess England at that time looked nearly the same like it does in this movie. The actors are very good too, even if some of them are a bit confusing (e.g. Fagin, I still don't know whether he is a good one or not.). But some of the scenes don't really make sense, you don't get enough background information, such as the scene with the old lady on his way to London or the scene at the beginning (it's an open beginning). The ending of the movie is sad and happy and the same time. On the one hand it's good that he is save now, on the other hand it's sad that Fagin has got to die. I never read the book before, so I can't say whether it's a good movie compared to the book. I had to watch the movie in English Class and I really enjoyed it. Even for people that have English as the second language it is easy to understand. If it's all about the question "Is it a movie for every age?" I can say that it is not a movie for little kids, like under 12 years, because it contains a bit of violence, but for older people, its suitable. I could even imagine watching this movie with my parents, I think they would enjoy it too, so it's a movie for the hole family, if your kids are older than twelve ;-)

I borrowed the DVD of this movie and put it on with great anticipation, only to feel disappointed halfway thru viewing. London is depicted nothing like Dickens described it, chaotic and dingy. Here the buildings are simply "Hollywoodish" and artificial. Oliver comes across as expressionless and emotionless at the best of times, and he is too clean for a workhouse orphan cum street child. Ditto with the gang of boy thieves under Fagin's employ, they come across as just brats with all swagger and no bravado. Bill Sikes is too wooden and for me, not violent or sadistic enough to scare a ghost. He seems to be hesitating in scenes where he is supposed to be really physical, e.g., hitting Nancy, like he seems to contemplate briefly whether he should go thru the action or not. And I find it hard to swallow the fact that in the final third of the movie, Fagin and his boys would just hang out in a warehouse in resolute acceptance of their eventual fate, instead of planning an escape from police, if they were "proper" criminals. Roman Polanski is a great director and I have great admiration for his works, but this one is a complete letdown.